Things that annoy you beyond reason...(Vol 4)

[JustinF]

civiclegend said:

The fact that 'Reader's Cars' section isn't called 'Reader's Drives'.

Was it 'Club', or 'Fiesta' which had this wonderful feature?

• Fistful thoughts

FTFY

[nonsequitur]

Moonhawk said:

Overly objectionable NIMBYs

It's one thing to not want a fracking rig drilling next to your back garden - but a property down the road recently applied for planning permission to sell off part of their garden (about 0.15 acres) and build a single detached house on it. The outline plans look reasonable and in keeping.

The part of the garden being sold fronts the road and has properties on either side of it - a detached house on one side and a small estate of 4 or 5 new build detached houses (probably 2 years old) on the other. There is also a relatively new house right opposite that was built when the owner bought a derelict bungalow/village shop and demolished it - replacing it with a huge (and fking ugly) detached house.

Now - of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.

Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?

The original application was rejected - but the rejection was over turned on appeal. I'd love to have seen their faces.

Edited by Moonhawk on Thursday 23 November 15:56

It would seem that the NIMBY'S won with the local planning department, but the appeal is out of both parties' hands. Similar on my patch. Local rejection, then an inspector from Bristol (we are nowhere near), passed three new builds that have no place in our locale. Sore thumb springs to mind.

[nonsequitur]

psi310398 said:

nonsequitur said:

I was worried for a while, but now it's all clear : I am cognosceti.

This being PH, of course, I can't help but point out that cognoscenti is the plural. You are a cognoscente.

HTH

I've always been a bit plural.

[Clockwork Cupcake]

Moonhawk said:

Sorry - are good tradesmen so rare that when one turns up when they say they will, does the job and doesn't try to rip you off - they are considered a "hero" these days?

Well, quite.

TTmonkey said:

I've bought it already you c**ts so stop sending me spam about the thing I NO LONGER need to buy......!

And, worse than that, emails that say "We see you bought a printer last month. Would you like to buy another one?"

How quickly do you think I will get through a printer FFS!?!!

[MartG]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

Moonhawk said:

Sorry - are good tradesmen so rare that when one turns up when they say they will, does the job and doesn't try to rip you off - they are considered a "hero" these days?

Well, quite.

TTmonkey said:

I've bought it already you c**ts so stop sending me spam about the thing I NO LONGER need to buy......!

And, worse than that, emails that say "We see you bought a printer last month. Would you like to buy another one?"

How quickly do you think I will get through a printer FFS!?!!

The ones that annoy me are the 'suggestions' which are nothing like what you originally searched for

[nonsequitur]

[redacted]

[kowalski655]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

And, worse than that, emails that say "We see you bought a printer last month. Would you like to buy another one?"
How quickly do you think I will get through a printer FFS!?!!

Sometimes cheaper to buy a new printer than get a refill of ink
Also the emails asking you to review the item purchased/their service...err, no,I just want to use it!

[castex]

nonsequitur said:

I was worried for a while, but now it's all clear : I am cognosceti.

cognoscente

Yes, I know. I get annoyed by people asking for 'a panini'. We all have our crosses to bear.

[MartG]

[redacted]

[Clockwork Cupcake]

MartG said:

Not when you work out cost per page printed, as the ink cartridges in new printers are underfilled and you don't get as anywhere near as many pages printed as with a new full cartridge

Indeed. Most printers ship with "starter" cartridges these days, which have only a fraction of the ink capacity of normal cartridges.

[davhill]

Shakermaker said:

I would say it should be "Member's Cars" or similar, since I don't really consider us to be "readers" of a forum, we are members of the forum

Perhaps this ought to be in the thread for those of a certain age.

It was 'reader's drives' that rang a bell. When I was deputy ed of Kit Car, Pen Roberts suggested
using it as a section.

I pooh-poohed it because of the association with the Barclays Banker's mags. However,
I also knew of the following socio-sexual ditty. It was contemporary.

Ivor Biggun & The Red Nosed Burglers - Readers Wives (Beggars Banquet 1978)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHG91g3A1aI

Enjoy!

[Balmoral]

Moonhawk said:

Overly objectionable NIMBYs......

......of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.

Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?

My in-laws live on an estate built in the seventies, those living in the adjacent sixties development protested, in the eighties a new estate was built and those living in the seventies development protested, this has carried on through the nineties and the noughties, in each subsequent decade those in the previous decades development have protested the new. Contemptible.

[nonsequitur]

Balmoral said:

Moonhawk said:

Overly objectionable NIMBYs......

......of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.

Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?

My in-laws live on an estate built in the seventies, those living in the adjacent sixties development protested, in the eighties a new estate was built and those living in the seventies development protested, this has carried on through the nineties and the noughties, in each subsequent decade those in the previous decades development have protested the new. Contemptible.

And when the developments reach the coastline the fish will object. ( Cod Against Development).

[Bobberoo99]

nonsequitur said:

Balmoral said:

Moonhawk said:

Overly objectionable NIMBYs......

......of course people were going to object to the planning application (they always do). But what surprised me is who objected. Every owner on the new build estate objected, as did the guy opposite. This new house wont overlook any of them and in fact it'll barely be visible. It's not like it's going to spoil anyone's view or privacy.

Just seems rather hypocritical that they are living where they are due to planning permission being granted on a new build property - yet they object (quite vociferously in some cases) to somebody trying to do the same?

My in-laws live on an estate built in the seventies, those living in the adjacent sixties development protested, in the eighties a new estate was built and those living in the seventies development protested, this has carried on through the nineties and the noughties, in each subsequent decade those in the previous decades development have protested the new. Contemptible.

And when the developments reach the coastline the fish will object. ( Cod Against Development).

We live on a peninsular, one road in/out, several applications for housing developments have been turned down due to not wanting to blur the lines between two villages, never for the fact that more houses means more congestion, or the fact that the local amenities already can't cope with the number of people, it already takes upto 45 minutes to drive the 2.7 miles from the village to the motorway at peak times!!!! And yes they are already building two more lots of housing further up said road adding even more traffic to the problem!!

[Cotty]

Balmoral said:

My in-laws live on an estate built in the seventies, those living in the adjacent sixties development protested, in the eighties a new estate was built and those living in the seventies development protested, this has carried on through the nineties and the noughties, in each subsequent decade those in the previous decades development have protested the new. Contemptible.

Understandable though. People buy a house based on the surrounding area, shops, density of population etc. in fact many factors. It is understandable that they would object to any changes.

[colonel c]

My Sky Q remote on/off button that also switches the TV on and off. If I don’t get the exact timing of a double press required it will switch off TV and restart the Sky box. Then after a few seconds the TV will automatically spring into life because it has detected the Sky box is restarting. Second attempt results in the Sky box going off but the TV is still on. Another press and the TV go off but the Sky box restart and so on. I often end up using both the TV and Sky remotes.

[Shakermaker]

colonel c said:

My Sky Q remote on/off button that also switches the TV on and off. If I don’t get the exact timing of a double press required it will switch off TV and restart the Sky box. Then after a few seconds the TV will automatically spring into life because it has detected the Sky box is restarting. Second attempt results in the Sky box going off but the TV is still on. Another press and the TV go off but the Sky box restart and so on. I often end up using both the TV and Sky remotes.

Short press - turns on/off Sky Q box
Press and hold - Turns on/off TV

it isn't a double press to turn the tv on/off

[colonel c]

Shakermaker said:

Short press - turns on/off Sky Q box
Press and hold - Turns on/off TV

it isn't a double press to turn the tv on/off

Press and hold seems to result in the Sky box going off then the TV but the Sky Q box then restarts.

[Chris Stott]

Shakermaker said:

Short press - turns on/off Sky Q box
Press and hold - Turns on/off TV

it isn't a double press to turn the tv on/off

This.

My wife still can't manage it after 18 months with Q... I hear her shouting 'TV's not working again' from the bedroom at least once a week.

[Shakermaker]

Chris Stott said:

Shakermaker said:

Short press - turns on/off Sky Q box
Press and hold - Turns on/off TV

it isn't a double press to turn the tv on/off

This.

My wife still can't manage it after 18 months with Q... I hear her shouting 'TV's not working again' from the bedroom at least once a week.

Surprisingly my wife has managed pretty well with it, much better than when I had my surround sound all wired in and needed 3 different remotes to get everything working.